https://padlet.com/matthew_zro/fuzgmh5h5dcy Case Summary Ch.10 en-us 2018-09-11 06:14:02 UTC 2018-11-16 01:50:29 UTC hello@padlet.com matthew_zro https://padlet.com/matthew_zro/fuzgmh5h5dcy/wish/279713997 Robert and Louise Sparks sold a home in Decatur, Georgia to Stephen A. Wheat and Teresa M. McCrerey-Wheat. The contract incorporated a Seller’s Disclosure Statement. In the disclosure statement, the Sparkses represented that there were no “encroachments, leases, unrecorded easements, or boundary line disputes” with the property. 18 months later, the Wheats experienced a problem with the sewer lateral servicing the property.]]> 2018-09-11 06:14:44 UTC https://padlet.com/matthew_zro/fuzgmh5h5dcy/wish/279713997 matthew_zro https://padlet.com/matthew_zro/fuzgmh5h5dcy/wish/279715320 The Wheats, the Wheat Trust, and Stephen A. Wheat who was a trustee are suing the Sparkses. They asserted a fraud claim based on the misrepresentations about the sewer lateral and misleading failures to disclose important information regarding the lateral. They also asserted a fraud claim based on misleading nondisclosure, or active concealment of the water intrusions in the basement. Suing for compensatory and punitive damages. The Sparks filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted. The Wheats appealed.]]> 2018-09-11 06:22:20 UTC https://padlet.com/matthew_zro/fuzgmh5h5dcy/wish/279715320 matthew_zro https://padlet.com/matthew_zro/fuzgmh5h5dcy/wish/279715643 When there is no genuine issue of material fact, the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A purchaser claiming he was induced into a sales contract has 2 elections of remedies. Promptly after discovering the fraud he may rescind the contract, and he may affirm the contract and sue for damages resulting from the fraud.]]> 2018-09-11 06:23:50 UTC https://padlet.com/matthew_zro/fuzgmh5h5dcy/wish/279715643 matthew_zro https://padlet.com/matthew_zro/fuzgmh5h5dcy/wish/279715854 In order for a fraud claim to be actionable, the fraud must be based upon a misrepresentation made to the defrauded party and relied upon by the defrauded party. Therefore, no evidence exists that the Wheat Trust relies on the alleged misstatements. Jury found that the trial court did not make a mistake in the granting summary judgment from the claims made by the Wheat Trust.]]> 2018-09-11 06:24:49 UTC https://padlet.com/matthew_zro/fuzgmh5h5dcy/wish/279715854 matthew_zro https://padlet.com/matthew_zro/fuzgmh5h5dcy/wish/279715982 The trial court determined that Stephen Wheat was not damaged because he conveyed his interest in the property to the Wheat Trust, therefore making him ineligible to claim damages since he was no longer the owner of the property.]]> 2018-09-11 06:25:37 UTC https://padlet.com/matthew_zro/fuzgmh5h5dcy/wish/279715982 matthew_zro https://padlet.com/matthew_zro/fuzgmh5h5dcy/wish/279716000 Grant of summary judgment to the Sparkses reversed in favor of the Wheats individually; case remanded for further proceedings.]]> 2018-09-11 06:25:44 UTC https://padlet.com/matthew_zro/fuzgmh5h5dcy/wish/279716000